It would seem that AI is much like an iceberg to the Titanic. What we can currently perceive "above the surface" falls short of appreciating it's full impact to a system/structure designed to withstand single compartment damage but not injury across several at once. The implementation of "trickle down economics" in the 80s and its contin…
It would seem that AI is much like an iceberg to the Titanic. What we can currently perceive "above the surface" falls short of appreciating it's full impact to a system/structure designed to withstand single compartment damage but not injury across several at once. The implementation of "trickle down economics" in the 80s and its continuance to date despite its severe negative consequences to the majority of workers in this nation was possible because it was and continues to be successfully "sold" to those it damages because tax policies and Supreme Court decisions have allowed the undermining of one person one vote by allowing the windfalls accumulated by the rich to be used to market the continuance of that agenda. It seems the assumption by the author is that AI, like an iceberg, is a force/entity that cannot be managed or controlled in its implementation and therefore its impact on our society, and that, as a consequence, and like the Titanic, we can only hope for survivors. Given the inertia and indifference of Congress, populated as it is by the wealthy, such an assumption is probably only realistic. One should not ignore, however, that the government could play a role in throttling the pace of change since it would be in its interest and that of the majority of people it purportedly represents to reasonably apply controls to the implementation of this technology, allowing for the survival of the nation as a democracy and permitting a greater percentage of its citizens a means to support themselves in the face of such anticipated change. The Titanic lies on the bottom of the Atlantic in part because it was operated under the premise that it was designed not to sink. Post mortem analysis demonstrated that it did not have to happen that way. I would like to think that the significant and anticipated disruptions to society AI is expected to bring does not mean that we have to be dragged behind it helplessly but might instead temper its pace to better accommodate our needs for purpose and meaning and allow more time for transition.
It would seem that AI is much like an iceberg to the Titanic. What we can currently perceive "above the surface" falls short of appreciating it's full impact to a system/structure designed to withstand single compartment damage but not injury across several at once. The implementation of "trickle down economics" in the 80s and its continuance to date despite its severe negative consequences to the majority of workers in this nation was possible because it was and continues to be successfully "sold" to those it damages because tax policies and Supreme Court decisions have allowed the undermining of one person one vote by allowing the windfalls accumulated by the rich to be used to market the continuance of that agenda. It seems the assumption by the author is that AI, like an iceberg, is a force/entity that cannot be managed or controlled in its implementation and therefore its impact on our society, and that, as a consequence, and like the Titanic, we can only hope for survivors. Given the inertia and indifference of Congress, populated as it is by the wealthy, such an assumption is probably only realistic. One should not ignore, however, that the government could play a role in throttling the pace of change since it would be in its interest and that of the majority of people it purportedly represents to reasonably apply controls to the implementation of this technology, allowing for the survival of the nation as a democracy and permitting a greater percentage of its citizens a means to support themselves in the face of such anticipated change. The Titanic lies on the bottom of the Atlantic in part because it was operated under the premise that it was designed not to sink. Post mortem analysis demonstrated that it did not have to happen that way. I would like to think that the significant and anticipated disruptions to society AI is expected to bring does not mean that we have to be dragged behind it helplessly but might instead temper its pace to better accommodate our needs for purpose and meaning and allow more time for transition.